Dismissed

Sri Rajesh Sanei and Anr. v. Hdfc Bank

DRAT22 Nov 2022REGULAR APPEAL/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of two interim applications. It allowed Appellant No. 1 to proceed with risk at its own cost regarding its liquidation status. It allowed a waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, noting over 50% recovery.

What did the court decide?

Waiver of pre-deposit allowed; I.A. No. 158 disposed of; Appellant No. 1 to proceed at own risk; Hearings listed.

Sri Rajesh Sanei and Anr. versus Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal Dairy No. 200 of 2021

¶3

(Arising out of S.A.. 02 of 2019 in DRT-III, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

22.11.2022 Dulichand Auto Sales Private Limited & 2 Others … Appellants -VsHousing Development Finance Corporation Limited … Respondent Mr. A.K. Dhandhania, Learned Seniro Advocate with Ms. Sweta Mishra, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶6

Mr. Rajeev Maity, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

I.A. 210 of 2022

¶9

This application is for deletion of name of Appellant No. 1 from the array of parties. Objection filed by the Respondents.

¶10

Learned Counsel for Appellants submits that Appellant No. 1 has been ordered to be liquidated vide order dated 12^th May, 2022, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in C.P. (IB) No. 1396/KB/2019, as such the name of Appellant No. 1 may be deleted. Appellants No. 2 and 3 are ordered to proceed with the appeal.

¶11

Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that Official Liquidator should be made a party in the matter.

¶12

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is prerogative of the Appellants to proceed

¶13

¶14

with the matter. However, Appellants are directed to delete the name of Appellant No. 1 at their own risk subject to merits of the matter.

¶15

Accordingly, I.A. 210 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶16

I.A. 158 of 2021

¶17

This is an application praying for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act 2002.

¶18

It is submitted that as per the Demand Notice an amount of Rs.8,01,45,505.98p has been shown due and payable. As per the assertion made in paragraph 13 of the opposition to waiver, the secured asset has been sold by the Respondent. It is mentioned that the property is sold at Rs.4,50,00,001.00 only.

¶19

Learned Counsel for Respondent candidly conceded that possession of the property is also delivered to the auction purchaser.

¶20

More than 50% of the amount due having been recovered by the Respondent, waiver application is allowed.

¶21

Accordingly, I.A. 158 of 2021 stands disposed of.

¶22

Respondents may file opposition within four weeks with advance copy to the Appellants; rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶23

List the matter on 21^st February, 2023 for hearing of the appeal.

¶24

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶25

Dated: 22^nd November, 2022 06/ac

Sri Rajesh Sanei and Anr. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajesh Sanei and Anr. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus M/s. B.N Parida

Madhukar R Bhangay versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. versus Bank of India

Ghanta Siva Prasad versus Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.

Yerram Venkata Ramana versus Karur Vysya Bank

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. versus Bank of India